Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Federal Reserve Notes shall be redeemed

Expand Messages
  • The Handyman
    It is still the law that federal reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand and Congress cannot change the remedy.
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 25, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
       
      It is still the law that federal reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand and Congress cannot change the remedy.
       
    • Frog Farmer
      ... This was VERY enlightening! Here I had thought that the redemption was not occurring, while it was just the people who didn t know HOW and were never told
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 31, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        > It is still the law that federal reserve notes shall be redeemed in
        > lawful money on demand and Congress cannot change the remedy.
        >
        > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9010856874304912516&hl=en


        This was VERY enlightening! Here I had thought that the redemption was
        not occurring, while it was just the people who didn't know HOW and were
        never told (it IS pretty simple and straightforward, so maybe the
        obvious is never explained). This really opens up a lot of opportunity
        for me! I hope it opens up a lot of opportunity for everyone!

        It may take me a while to get back into that old economy where ...ugh!
        just the thought revolts me! I'll think on it a while before I accept
        any checks for non-endorsement. And of course FRNs are still and always
        were the no-no. So you have to reject them by redeeming them before you
        touch them, and you never touch them until the bank gives you frns
        symbolizing some inelastic money. It's all a mind game.

        I think I'll pass anyway now that I'm used to it!

        Regards,

        FF
      • The Handyman
        If I can get all my ducks in a row I may give the 1913 Federal Reserve Act remedy a try but I don t have the process perfected. Ideas are welcome. Five
        Message 3 of 5 , Sep 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          If I can get all my ducks in a row I may give the 1913 Federal Reserve Act  remedy a try but I don't have the process perfected.  Ideas are welcome.  Five years ago the state seized a sold a paid for home for non-payment of taxes.  After disbursing all proceeds we were given a CHECK by the state for $29,000.00 which we rejected under Art. 1, Sec. 10 and Hagar.   We filed a petition for money due and the Judge simply said to accept the check and save yourself a lot of trouble.  There is no law mandating one to accept a check from anyone much less a state that is bound to Art. 1, Sec. 10.  If Congress cannot override the state governments incorporated powers under Article I Section 10 of the Constitution, our   current public policy, Congress cannot override an American¬ís right to redemption of FRNs into lawful money under 12 USC 411 if the FRNs are properly accepted and presented for redemption.  We are on appeal now but I suspect the appellate court will rule that the state must tender legal tender and not a check.  To the state that will mean FRNS.  Rather than reject them we can present them for redemption under the    1913 Federal Reserve Act  remedy now codified as 12 USC 411.  If rejected at the bank then the tender by the state was not good.
          .----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 6:32 PM
          Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Federal Reserve Notes shall be redeemed

           
        • Virgil Cooper
          Hello, Handyman and others on this list, You are confronting heavy guns . I suggest you contact Ed Vieira and seek his recommendation on how you should
          Message 4 of 5 , Sep 2, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello, Handyman and others on this list,

            You are confronting "heavy guns".  I suggest you contact Ed Vieira and seek his recommendation
            on how you should proceed with your case.  You should be very cautious about NOT setting
            bad precedent by using the wrong arguments or couching your approach in a manner that can
            be twisted by the "enemy" to aid the other side.  Cleon Skousen used to say in his constitutional
            lectures on money and banking that "the bankers will not relinquish their monopoly without blood
            running knee deep in the streets".  That should give you some idea just how deeply entrenched are the bankers'
            irredeemable fiat paper currency (FRNs).  The "system" won't take kindly to your efforts to "enforce" honest money.
            Just my opinion, for what it's worth.  Dr. Skousen also said, "One cannot discuss the Federal Reserve without also
            discussing the IRS.  They are integrally connected.  They are two sides of the same coin.  They are partners in crime.
            The IRS is the collection arm of the Federal Reserve." 

            Best regards from Virgil


            The Handyman wrote:
             

            If I can get all my ducks in a row I may give the 1913 Federal Reserve Act  remedy a try but I don't have the process perfected.  Ideas are welcome.  Five years ago the state seized a sold a paid for home for non-payment of taxes.  After disbursing all proceeds we were given a CHECK by the state for $29,000.00 which we rejected under Art. 1, Sec. 10 and Hagar.   We filed a petition for money due and the Judge simply said to accept the check and save yourself a lot of trouble.  There is no law mandating one to accept a check from anyone much less a state that is bound to Art. 1, Sec. 10.
          • Frog Farmer
            ... From what I get of it all, with the new old information always out there for avid readers, The perfect way to deal with the new reality is to NOT
            Message 5 of 5 , Sep 2, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              > If I can get all my ducks in a row I may give the 1913 Federal Reserve
              > Act remedy a try but I don't have the process perfected. Ideas are
              > welcome.

              From what I get of it all, with the "new" old information always out
              there for avid readers, The "perfect" way to deal with the "new reality"
              is to NOT wake up one morning holding FRNS only to discover your error
              already committed. YOU endorsed the check. You offered to cover the
              debt if the instrument failed. Your endorsement was the result of a
              conclusion that it was in order, otherwise, to what degree are your
              other conclusions now suspect? In an environment of scientific
              deception and mind control, where is the line now between legal
              competence and incompetence? Who do YOU think killed JFK?

              > Five years ago the state seized a sold a paid for home for
              > non-payment of taxes. After disbursing all proceeds we were given a
              > CHECK by the state for $29,000.00 which we rejected under Art. 1, Sec.
              > 10 and Hagar. We filed a petition for money due and the Judge simply
              > said to accept the check and save yourself a lot of trouble.

              Now you can see why, their weasel words that admit you are right, just
              help them contain the knowledge from the sheeple. "Play along to get
              along alive, now. Just take the check and then, you know, do the
              non-signature non-endorsement thingy... (that I must've missed the day I
              was sick and out of class..." But if you fail to address the issue, or
              fail to take the remedy into consideration, you are deemed by any third
              party observer to have waived the remedy.

              When the First goes, how does that go about the Second? In the eyes of
              the world, Constitutionalists are almost seen as religious zealots. I
              mean, the contract was abrogated ages ago, and one party is still
              whining, "well, what about this part?! You haven't violated that one
              yet!" Then the response is, "we're responding with enforcement
              actions." You point out one lawful right to help educate them and it is
              violated just to amuse themselves and have a job to do, while testing to
              see how serious you are. Will you jump through the hoops? I personally
              believe that we all must get what we deserve and the range of
              experiences is so vast no one could completely understand the position
              of one diametrically opposite in the orbit of space and time and
              understanding. So I believe that those "goons" also are individual to
              some extent. With so many of us now, thanks to science, it is hard to
              assign any other person a level of authority and be accurate. We need a
              third point of view. One outside the orbit of the two contenders, one
              to whose decision each will defer, to settle the issue.

              "Officer, may I please ride in the back seat of your car on the way to
              see the magistrate? I am low on gas, and my back has been hurting, and
              I know whoever is on duty will authorize you to return me here. I've
              been through this before. I know the agenda. Or I could be free to go
              if not detained much longer, as I have a very valuable meeting to attend
              very shortly. I just want to minimize damages all around." I know, it
              sounds "kiss-ass" but it's for the audience. Same with the writing on
              the check, you stand there, you don't sign, your hand is seen to be
              writing by observing third parties, you receive the same papers, but the
              agreement is different. The ramifications are different. The legal
              status of the parties are different. Yet to a child, everyone enjoying
              the same observable outcome is assumed to have arrived by the same chain
              of causation. It's the "everyone knows THAT!" syndrome at work.

              It's all a marvelous con job on the Rubes. Let me quote a friend:
              But those days are all over now, and the only people who are buying
              gold, along with silver and oil, are the people who know what happens to
              an unsound, fiat currency (like the dollar) in the hands of a government
              composed of a bunch of socialist, commie-think yahoos (like the US
              Congress) that willingly deficit-spends insane amounts of money thanks
              to a central bank (like the Federal Reserve) creating it and a
              population sitting around saying, "Duh! Okay with us!" Hahaha!
              We're freaking doomed!
              Until next time,
              The Mogambo Guru
              for The Daily Reckoning

              Editor's Note: Richard Daughty is general partner and COO for Smith
              Consultant Group, serving the financial and medical communities, and the
              editor of The Mogambo Guru economic newsletter - an avocational exercise
              to heap disrespect on those who desperately deserve it.
              The Mogambo Guru is quoted frequently in Barron's, The Daily Reckoning
              and other fine publications. Click here to visit the Mogambo archive
              page.
              http://clicks.dailyreckoning.com//t/AQ/Y7M/aKc/Cvg/AQ/Aa5mFA/6A25

              > There is
              > no law mandating one to accept a check from anyone much less a state
              > that is bound to Art. 1, Sec. 10.

              That's Right! So if you object all the way for the record, you are
              absolved of the attaching diseases! You're FREE! Yes, you did "appear
              to " waive your rights, but appearances are not THAT important AS are
              RESULTS! Don't misunderstand me, I myself may choose to continue to
              avoid both checks AND FRNs as I have grown used to over the years. But
              what I like about my new understanding, via that redemption video, is
              that now I have a choice of how the scene can play out. I am not FORCED
              to ruin everyone's day, as I have been for years. The bottom line is,
              if you are going to do this, it has to be with the next check you are
              offered, not with the FRNs you've already taken, YET, there were mention
              of people saying "if I had known this all along, I would have done it"
              and for them the report was good. I like to be able to explain my own
              actions, not find out later that they were irrational but by some quirk
              of chance happened to fit in with no damages.

              > If Congress cannot override the
              > state governments incorporated powers under Article I Section 10 of
              > the Constitution, our current public policy, Congress cannot
              > override an American's right to redemption of FRNs into lawful money
              > under 12 USC 411 if the FRNs are properly accepted and presented for
              > redemption.

              The point is, if they were properly accepted then the redemption has
              already occurred. But I can see the humor AND utility in redeeming the
              same ones over and over again. Here's the rub to that: the serial
              numbers. They REALLY have a function!

              > We are on appeal now but I suspect the appellate court
              > will rule that the state must tender legal tender and not a check. To
              > the state that will mean FRNS. Rather than reject them we can present
              > them for redemption under the 1913 Federal Reserve Act remedy now
              > codified as 12 USC 411. If rejected at the bank then the tender by
              > the state was not good.

              Are FRNs ever ejected at a bank? The appeals court will probably go
              back and look at the objections you made and how they were overruled,
              and conclude that you should have not endorsed the original check with
              your name, but with the redemption language. They will not come out and
              say as much.

              But the next time a check comes your way, you'll know how to magically
              transform it and avoid all the nasties that attach to FRNs. Yes, you'll
              still have them in your pocket, but you will have taken all the
              elasticity out of them. Will you be kind enough to distinguish them
              from the other FRNs in circulation for the people you'll be passing them
              to? After all, the serial numbers on yours mean something that change
              those particular pieces of paper, don't they? Those are the redeemed
              ones. How many times can you redeem a stamp?

              Regards,

              FF
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.